Climate change already accelerating sea level rise, study finds

The caldera of Mount Pinatubo on June 22, 1991. Credit: Courtesy of USGS.

Greenhouse gases are already having an accelerating effect on sea level rise, but the impact has so far been masked by the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Satellite observations, which began in 1993, indicate that the rate of sea level rise has held fairly steady at about 3 millimeters per year. But the expected acceleration due to climate change is likely hidden in the satellite record because of a happenstance of timing: The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop.

The new study finds that the lower starting point effectively distorts the calculation of sea level rise acceleration for the last couple of decades.

The study lends support to climate model projections, which show the rate of sea level rise escalating over time as the climate warms. The findings were published today in the open-access Nature journal Scientific Reports.

"When we used climate model runs designed to remove the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, we saw the rate of sea level rise accelerating in our simulations," said NCAR scientist John Fasullo, who led the study. "Now that the impacts of Pinatubo have faded, this acceleration should become evident in the satellite measurements in the coming decade, barring another major volcanic eruption."

Study co-author Steve Nerem, from the University of Colorado Boulder, added: "This study shows that large volcanic eruptions can significantly impact the satellite record of global average sea level change. So we must be careful to consider these effects when we look for the effects of climate change in the satellite-based sea level record."

The findings have implications for the extent of sea level rise this century and may be useful to coastal communities planning for the future. In recent years, decision makers have debated whether these communities should make plans based on the steady rate of sea level rise measured in recent decades or based on the accelerated rate expected in the future by climate scientists.

The study was funded by NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR's sponsor.

Reconstructing a pre-Pinatubo world

Climate change triggers sea level rise in a couple of ways: by warming the ocean, which causes the water to expand, and by melting glaciers and ice sheets, which drain into the ocean and increase its volume. In recent decades, the pace of warming and melting has accelerated, and scientists have expected to see a corresponding increase in the rate of sea level rise. But analysis of the relatively short satellite record has not borne that out.

To investigate, Fasullo, Nerem, and Benjamin Hamlington of Old Dominion University worked to pin down how quickly sea levels were rising in the decades before the satellite record began.

Prior to the launch of the international TOPEX/Poseidon satellite mission in late 1992, sea level was mainly measured using tide gauges. While records from some gauges stretch back to the 18th century, variations in measurement technique and location mean that the pre-satellite record is best used to get a ballpark estimate of global mean sea level.

To complement the historic record, the research team used a dataset produced by running the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model 40 times with slightly different—but historically plausible—starting conditions. The resulting simulations characterize the range of natural variability in the factors that affect sea levels. The model was run on the Yellowstone system at the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center.

A separate set of model runs that omitted volcanic aerosols—particles spewed into the atmosphere by an eruption—was also assessed. By comparing the two sets of runs, the scientists were able to pick out a signal (in this case, the impact of Mount Pinatubo's eruption) from the noise (natural variations in ocean temperature and other factors that affect sea level).

"You can't do it with one or two model runs—or even three or four," Fasullo said. "There's just too much accompanying climate noise to understand precisely what the effect of Pinatubo was. We could not have done it without large numbers of runs."

Using models to understand observations

Analyzing the simulations, the research team found that Pinatubo's eruption caused the oceans to cool and sea levels to drop by about 6 millimeters immediately before TOPEX/Poseidon began recording observations.

As the sunlight-blocking aerosols from Mount Pinatubo dissipated in the simulations, sea levels began to slowly rebound to pre-eruption levels. This rebound swamped the acceleration caused by the warming climate and made the rate of sea level rise higher in the mid- to late 1990s than it would otherwise have been.

This higher-than-normal rate of sea level rise in the early part of the satellite record makes it appear that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated over time and may actually have decreased somewhat. In fact, according to the study, if the Pinatubo eruption had not occurred—leaving sea level at a higher starting point in the early 1990s—the satellite record would have shown a clear acceleration.

"The satellite record is unable to account for everything that happened before the first satellite was launched, " Fasullo said. "This study is a great example of how computer models can give us the historical context that's needed to understand some of what we're seeing in the satellite record."

Understanding whether the rate of sea level rise is accelerating or remaining constant is important because it drastically changes what sea levels might look like in 20, 50, or 100 years.

"These scientists have disentangled the major role played by the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo on trends in global mean sea level," said Anjuli Bamzai, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research. "This research is vital as society prepares for the potential effects of climate change."

Because the study's findings suggest that acceleration due to climate change is already under way, the acceleration should become evident in the satellite record in the coming decade, Fasullo said.

Since the original TOPEX/Poseidon mission, other satellites have been launched—Jason-1 in 2001 and Jason-2 in 2008—to continue tracking sea levels. The most recent satellite, Jason-3, launched on Jan. 17 of this year.

"Sea level rise is potentially one of the most damaging impacts of climate change, so it's critical that we understand how quickly it will rise in the future," Fasullo said. "Measurements from Jason-3 will help us evaluate what we've learned in this study and help us better plan for the future."

A new University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science-led study found that Miami Beach flood events have significantly increased over the last decade due to an acceleration of sea-level rise in ...

Rising sea levels are predicted to threaten many coastal sea marshes around the world in the coming decades as the Earth's climate warms. In addition to accelerating sea level rise, global climate change is predicted to increase ...

A new study published in the international journal Nature Communications has revealed how Western Australia's sea levels will rise into the next century, according to a team of researchers including UWA's Research Assistant ...

The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent—seemingly at odds with climate model projections—can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for ...

New University of Colorado Boulder-led research has established a causal link between climate warming and the localized extinction of a common Rocky Mountain flowering plant, a result that could serve as a herald of future ...

A NASA study based on an innovative technique for crunching torrents of satellite data provides the clearest picture yet of changes in Antarctic ice flow into the ocean. The findings confirm accelerating ice losses from the ...

Cyanobacteria - which propel the ocean engine and help sustain marine life - can shift their colour like chameleons to match different coloured light across the world's seas, according to research by an international collaboration ...

Like avalanches onshore,many processes cause submarine landslides. One very widespread assumption is that they are associated with dissociating gas hydrates in the seafloor. However, scientists at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre ...

63 comments

Oh, what is a poor AGW Cult to do when reality defies your dogma of doom and gloom?Do you seek "miracles", like that other infamous cult before you; the Church, or go the simpler route and just make shit up.

Let me get this straight. Simulations show acceleration, therefore those are the findings?

As usual the article fails to mention that tidal guages show a consistent 2.2mm/year rise for 150+ years with NO acceleration. These tidal guage measurements can be backed up by measurements of mass loss of ice in glaciers and temperature rise of the ocean totalling to 2.2mm with NO acceleration. Satellites which climate "scientists" eschew entirely now on superstitious reasoning for temperature take the mm accuracy of satellite measures on sea level for the last 20 years as MORE relevant than tidal guages. What happened to the skepticism about satellites. Couldn't there be drift here in the satellite measurements?

We are left with the inescapable conclusion of tampering and bias. Conclusions again based on computer models which means nothing. As Feynman once said its the data not the theory that matters. There are NO findings in thisa paper, only speculation.

antigoracle: Of course they make it up. They get paid to make it up. Billions and billions in research grant money, billions in green corporation funding from the US government, billions in publicity from the press conspire to make this a huge money making strategy. The pro-AGW cult is funded to many many billions and the Lukewarmists and skeptics sit on our butts and get no money from any exxon corporation donations they imagine or koch brother anti-christ fantasies they have. I wish I could make money by pointing out the stupidity of their articles but the money is clearly on the fantasy side of coming up with doom scenarios so somebody can start a company, do more research and get paid millions.

It is funny yesterday I was reading a realclimate.org debate over the variation between satellite records and land records. One poster noted that there seemed to be a steady growing difference between satellite records and land temperatures since 2000 which seemed to positively prove all 14 sounding units on 5 satellites and the balloon data sets were "drifting". When a AGW enthusiast pointed out that the land records have undergone continuous adjustments since 2000 (obviously to minimize the "pause") to raise temps the debate was quickly shut down. No need to look into that any further. No proof of tampering. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

"The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop."

Wouldn't that cause a distortion the other way?

..."Now that the impacts of Pinatubo have faded, this acceleration should become evident in the satellite measurements in the coming decade..."

In other words there isn't any acceleration.

If they do manage to manufacture some virtual acceleration inside their models, it will be feeble, and not enough to get to the meter or more of sea level rise which is the usual prediction, as that requires a rate more than three times what it is today.

And, virtual = imaginary.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

Yes, and one supposes that you clowns checked your reading comprehension skills at the door and so pretend that what the article clearly states is actually --a statement to the contrary!

This is a tactic I refer to as WILLFUL DISUNDERSTANDING, which is the preferred mode of thought for morons, ideologues, and trolls.

Exactly. I was frankly so taken aback by how badly this group of morons so missed the point of the article, and even further the point of the paper, that I thought it could only be willful. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one.

Their lack of comprehension only explains some of their behavior. The rest comes down to the fact that they don't really WANT to understand the paper since it provides evidence against their politicized view of the world.

Since when did the "Scientific Method" include adjusting data so that it supports desired conclusions. I also am disturbed that common (geologically speaking) naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes are considered "noise" in the data. If we are going to exclude the effects of volcanoes, why don't we throw out sunspots, solar storms, tornados, hurricanes, nuclear weapon detonations, etc. -- these are all just "noise" in the calculations of what is "normal" for the climate.BTW: the "...morons... missed the point..." and "Their lack of comprehension only explains some of their behavior" don't seem to me to be very "scientific" arguments, but that's just me, I guess.

Since when did the "Scientific Method" include adjusting data so that it supports desired conclusions.

Just like every other person who denies climate change in the comments of a climate story, your conspiratorial musings showcase how little you actually know about science. The data is not adjusted to fit conclusions, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Like every other scientist in every other scientific field, new data that is gather is added to the already vast body of knowledge regarding climate change to further refine the theory. That you make such a clearly biased and ignorant comment shows only your political stripe.

I also am disturbed that common (geologically speaking) naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes are considered "noise" in the data.

And apparently reading comprehension is not high on your list of priorities either. Seriously, if you are going to make a strawman, at least consider one that hasn't been addressed 1000's of times!

For decades the AGW Cult's go to for their rising sea level doom and gloom has been the Antarctic, but now that real science has confirmed their lies --http://phys.org/n...eet.htmlthey must now look elsewhere to make shit up to propagate their dogma for the hungry ignorant Chicken Littles.Hey Chicken Littles, find someone with a brain, who knows real science, and have them explain to you the duration of Pinatubo's effect.http://www.climat...noes.htm

Well lads I might even agree that there is no "organized" conspiracy per se in climate science. But there is a whole bunch of funding available for people willing to come up with the desired results. A similar event happened a few years back when low fat high carb diets were "Proven" to reduce heart attacks and promote weight loss. How many people did this fraud kill?

Give them enough funds and they will prove true anything that you wish.

An adjunct to that statement is the great harm that will be done to one's career if one offers an opposing view. Just make your Conservative political views known in academia and see how your teaching career progresses.

Well lads I might even agree that there is no "organized" conspiracy per se in climate science

@mractually, there is at least one provable attempt at conspiracy to fund anti-AGW media arguments that have no data or proof and attempt to get really stupid people to ignore empirical evidence, science and reality for the sake of making money off their choices:http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

if you can refute that, fell free, but bring equivalent empirical evidence from peer reviewed sourcesthanks.

.

when did the "Scientific Method" include adjusting data so that it supports desired conclusions

@wthrushit doesn'thowever, it must continually review it's equipment and methods in order to insure the best, most accurate data available

of course, one thing they have that you don't is: evidence

but then again, not a single anti-science poster here has given any evidence, just opinion

When you Chicken Little retards find someone with a brain to read and explain real science to you, just to avoid them running out of patience dealing with your stupidity, you should have them explain the following to you first.http://www.climat...perature

Did you really say " your conspiratorial musings showcase how little you actually know about science". I was taught that discourse as opposed to dogma was the corner stone of science. Do really expect everyone to jump on board with your opinions/projections/assumptions "just because"? I agree with the statement that "This research is vital as society prepares for the potential effects of climate change." But only if the data is viewed and analyzed with an open mind. "Climate Change" is proven! We have it every year in the temperate regions, and there have been ice ages, droughts, asteroids, etc. but that doesn't mean every hypothesis you folks come up with to predict the future is "proven valid" because the rest of us are "morons", lacking in "reading comprehension". Your article makes it clear that you are making educated guesses and creating theories and are attempting to get data to support them, which is fine. But that doesn't make others moron because they disagree.

I was taught that discourse as opposed to dogma was the corner stone of science.

And yet you come here and spout the same political nonsense we have seen hundreds of times.

Do really expect everyone to jump on board with your opinions/projections/assumptions "just because"?

Why do you think it is a matter of opinion? Can you read the studies? WHy do you think it is "just because"?

I agree with the statement that "This research is vital as society prepares for the potential effects of climate change." But only if the data is viewed and analyzed with an open mind. "Climate Change" is proven!

True, but in pure denialist fashion you add:

But only if the data is viewed and analyzed with an open mind. "Climate Change" is proven! We have it every year in the temperate regions, and there have been ice ages, droughts, asteroids, etc. but that doesn't mean every hypothesis you folks come up with to predict the future is "proven valid"

It appears that pleasant, cordial discussion is not your motivation for publishing this piece. "Political nonsence"? "denialist fashion"? Are name calling and pergorative comments your "scientific method"?I would think it would be important to you to remain calm, gather your data, then present it in calm non- confrontational way when you actually have the data you clearly expect to get. I'm just a lowly Engineer so I only know how to apply data and principles that are accurate representations of reality. Your projections, presumptions, impressions or whatever in the absence of actual (not "corrected') data are NOT useful to me, hence my questioning. Sorry you are offended.

I was taught that discourse as opposed to dogma was the corner stone of science

@wthrushactually it is evidence and the free sharing of information that is the cornerstone of science... the problem isn't Maggnus, it's the repetitious regurgitation of nonsensical argument from belief that those who argue against AGW tend to post and consider equivalent to the scientific method

Do really expect everyone to jump on board with your opinions/projections/assumptions "just because"?

nope

i expect you to either accept the evidence or provide equivalent evidence constrained by the scientific method and peer reviewed, repeatable etc for your own argument

if you can't bring evidence equivalent to a study to refute a study, or a validated study to refute a validated study then you are, in essence, making the claim that *opinion* is stronger than provable evidence based science

that didn't work for religionwhat makes anyone thing it will work for their beliefs?

I'm just a lowly Engineer so I only know how to apply data and principles that are accurate representations of reality. Your projections, presumptions, impressions or whatever in the absence of actual (not "corrected') data are NOT useful to me, hence my questioning

you mean to tell me you never take into consideration the age, wear & tear, exposure, functionality or anything else regarding your measurement equipment as an engineer?

really?

you've never adjusted your data when you know (by demonstration or testing) that measurement equipment is wrong to |x| units and it's a known consistent measurement abnormality due to known issues that can't be immediately be corrected?

if you can't bring evidence equivalent to a study to refute a study, or a validated study to refute a validated study then you are, in essence, making the claim that *opinion* is stronger than provable evidence based science

It is certainly accepted practice in both engineering and pure science to define the error range (uncertainty) of your data. Why would you use "measurement equipment (that) is wrong". What "consistent measurement abnormality" are you referring to, and why are we just now hearing about it?I'm clearly wasting my time on this "discussion", so this will be my last post. I will, however, read your reply, if any. I would be interested in knowing what RULE 37 is, as well as its relevance. Also, I might add that scholars that don't use capitalization might well avoid criticizing typos (' vs "). I apologize that my Parkinson's makes my right hand unreliable.

if you can't bring evidence equivalent to a study to refute a study, or a validated study to refute a validated study then you are, in essence, making the claim that *opinion* is stronger than provable evidence based science

for example, changes in instrumentation, station moves, changes in the local environment such as urbanization, or the introduction of different observing practices like a new formula for calculating mean daily temperature or different observation times

so what i've done is add an analogous argument that is equivalent to said validated study

my question:where is your evidence that any adjustment was for nefarious purpose, had some conspiratorial background or had the intent of supplying misinformation for any reason?

I'm clearly wasting my time on this "discussion", so this will be my last post

so wait... you say you're an engineer and that

I was taught that discourse as opposed to dogma was the corner stone of science

but when i provide empirical evidence demonstrating that you're not only *not* well versed in math, science or physics (especially of climate science) and i bring discourse with evidence to the argument against you... you say you're wasting time and won't talk?

how is that logical, i wonder?is it because, perhaps, you have no evidence to propose or link for your arguments so the last thing you want to do is actually get into discourse that is evidence related?

or is it because you're lying and you don't want it to be too obvious?

RULE 37

essentially it means:there are no [insert claim here] on the internetno validation means you aint an engineer

1- not a scholar, nor a professor, nor a grammar naziI adapted my typing style to intentionally differentiate between myself and a previous troll who still posts bullsh*t about his uber-magic beliefs (and for speed, even though i am incredibly fast already)

2- i didn't criticize your typo, i criticized your use of quotes around a word that would normally indicate skepticism, satire, sarcasm or other things

I apologize that my Parkinson's

sorry to hear ya got Parkinson's... that really sucks, but again, as a skeptic, RULE 37 states i can't rule out this as a ruse to gain favour for a purpose

" RULE 37 essentially it means:there are no [insert claim here] on the internetno validation means you aint an engineer" or"RULE 37 states i can't rule out this as a ruse to gain favour for a purpose" - which is it; what do these "definitions" (quote intended to denote sarcasm) mean and from where were the obtained? Please don't tell me you're trying to (mis)quote the NCIS tv show in a "scholarly discussion" (sarcasm again).

It appears that pleasant, cordial discussion is not your motivation for publishing this piece. "Political nonsence"? "denialist fashion"? Are name calling and pergorative comments your "scientific method"?

It is at about par with political conspiracism masquerading as skeptical thinking. Who threw the first stone again?

I would think it would be important to you to remain calm, gather your data, then present it in calm non- confrontational way when you actually have the data you clearly expect to get.

It was, we did, it has - in about 1990, when "only" 80% of climate scientists agreed that AGG was an issue that needed attention.

I'm just a lowly Engineer

Another one. **Sigh* Ok, we can start back at the beginning again I guess. It seems that engineers, in their rush to build something, have forgotten how to do actual science. Ok let's see how far back we have to go. Do you know who Arrhenius is?

You mean the Pause that no longer exists? Funny how scientists think they are somehow above the flaws of human psychology.

Ah Jeff, back throwing your mis-characterizations around again I see. You really hate there there is such an abundance of evidence for and an utter dearth of evidence against don't you. So throw in some offhand trolling comment about how scientists are "bad", snicker like a little child, and run to the next article. You must be an engineer.

I'm clearly wasting my time on this "discussion", so this will be my last post

so wait... you say you're an engineer and that

I was taught that discourse as opposed to dogma was the corner stone of science

but when i provide empirical evidence demonstrating that you're not only *not* well versed in math, science or physics (especially of climate science) and i bring discourse with evidence to the argument against you... you say you're wasting time and won't talk?

how is that logical, i wonder?is it because, perhaps, you have no evidence to propose or link for your arguments so the last thing you want to do is actually get into discourse that is evidence related?

or is it because you're lying and you don't want it to be too obvious?

RULE 37

essentially it means:there are no [insert claim here] on the internetno validation means you aint an engineer

I could not have said this better. Sanctimonious comes to mind. As does disingenuous.

- which is it; what do these "definitions" (quote intended to denote sarcasm) mean and from where were the obtained?

@wthrushthe "definitions" were obtained from 4chan/b and their former list of basic rules: any basic search using an internet search enginethe very first link that comes up on mine is: http://www.urband...ule%2037

so we can see research isn't something you're familiar with either, eh?as for the "which is it" comment: it is all of it

the rest after the definition is the reason no one believes you're an engineer because your claim can't be validated or verified and you've made comments that directly contradict and/or question your scientific or engineering literacy

IOW- you can claim whatever you want but it's not real, valid or believable unless or until you can provide reputable evidence that can be researched and checked/validated

tinitus

You mean the Pause that no longer exists? Funny how scientists think they are somehow above the flaws of human psychology.

Newsflash:"Research reported in July 2015 on an updated NOAA dataset[1][3] casts doubt on the existence of a hiatus, and it finds no indication of a slowdown even in earlier years. Scientists working on other datasets welcomed this study, though they have expressed they view that the recent warming trend was less than in previous periods of the same length.Subsequently, a detailed study supports the conclusion that warming is continuing, but it also find there was less warming between 2001 and 2010 than climate models had predicted, and that this slowdown might be attributed to short-term variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), which was negative during that period. etc."

Cap'n, that was a quote from the article , and i'm using it in that context. Just questioning how sea level rise could be effected so quickly after the eruption. Never mind how the heck do you measure 3mm

"the slow rise of 1- to 2 mm per year in global sea level is an artifact of our current interglacial period. Local sea level rise or fall depends on local geology, the amount of groundwater pumping in coastal areas, and the cyclic weather patterns. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions."http://climatecha...el-scam/

You mean the Pause that no longer exists? Funny how scientists think they are somehow above the flaws of human psychology.

Ah Jeff, back throwing your mis-characterizations around again I see. You really hate there there is such an abundance of evidence for and an utter dearth of evidence against don't you. So throw in some offhand trolling comment about how scientists are "bad", snicker like a little child, and run to the next article. You must be an engineer.

Strawmen are as easily ignored as made.

Well put, it's the only way i r baboon can argue for the past decade, so easy to see through it, jeffey just another gorillacle sock like shootist and his 30-40 other odd socks

No use, if shooty can't even shoot the potty straight on how could he aim his crooked finger to press the green answer button on his phone ?

A bit harsh since the dotty codger actually has those issues. His lust for Dyson is really disgusting though.

Big Oil will be fine.

There is nothing more harsh than wasting the earth for everyone and everything that lives on it, monkey goracle and his socks are always proud at stupifying themselves however, and i'm glad they keep it up, great PR to the world on this stupidity ... ;)

and no monkey goracle, seems like your stupidity has no barriers, but i'll reply to that dumb remark of yours anyway, many does not depend on the grid, those that do are being forced by big oil's corrupted monopoly on energy, that will change however thanks to clowns like you preaching stupidity...

"I'm confused, according to past predictions shouldn't our coastlines already be submerged?"If it's submerged, it's no longer a coastline. If you meant the current coastlines, that's an exaggeration and a straw man argument. Meanwhile, some islands are seeing big effects already.

Some islands ? Shouldn't " sea level rise" affect all ? I watched a video about a science expedition to a tropic isl ,the scienctist pointed to a round coral growth in shallow water that was 100 yrs old.

BongThePuffin

Lol, no environmental scientist actually. What did engineers ever do to you?

And how is my statement a straw man? There was a pause in AST anomaly researchers were busy trying to explain, they decided heat was the important variable, found the "missing" heat in the deep oceans where there is dearth of data, models validated the models and then NOAA adjusted their data record and decided there wasn't a pause to start with. Is that somehow wrong?

Lol, no environmental scientist actually. What did engineers ever do to you?

And how is my statement a straw man? There was a pause in AST anomaly researchers were busy trying to explain, they decided heat was the important variable, found the "missing" heat in the deep oceans where there is dearth of data, models validated the models and then NOAA adjusted their data record and decided there wasn't a pause to start with. Is that somehow wrong?

There you go making unsupported, Willfully Disunderstood claims again.

Do we have to explain the "pause" again? For the record, anyone who actually knew the science has been saying there was no f***ing pause since the first stupid "pause" article got published. No pause. Never was. Didn't exist.

Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.

I know this won't make any difference regarding your OPINIONS about the hiatus/non-hiatus problem but since you requested it I figured I'd throw it out there.

Since that article says there is no hiatus, jeffensley (despite the populist terminology) I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Even the summary article specifically states that we're in a short-term weather phenomenon due to the ENSO cycle. It concludes that the decadal (climate) change is continuing to show increasing temperatures due to CO2 emissions. Since climate change is decadal. By definition. Duh.

Like I said. No pause. Never was.

Once again, we're blessed with the evidence that deniers literally read what they want research to say rather than what it actually says.

Once again, we're blessed with the evidence that deniers literally read what they want research to say rather than what it actually says.

Both studies reference an 8 decade-long slight NEGATIVE trend in warming... both concluding two completely different mechanisms being responsible for the HIATUS (their word not mine).... and you're suggesting it never happened and that we should ignore observations because models say we're still warming somewhere in there? Who's seeing what they want to see here? I'm not the smartest man in the world but 8 decades fit's well within the arbitrary decadal scale. Maybe you should bump it up to centurial so you can more easily write off the present observations as natural variability.

The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

In other words, what's important to you is not observation but what is "plausible" and "very likely" in the minds of the researchers based on their models? And why would they bother addressing something they aren't seeing and something you say never existed?

OMFG, no one said the phenomena didn't exist. It's just not a "pause in global warming". The warming was continuing, is continuing, will continue. You should know that - the Nature piece you linked to literally said that .You even quoted the bit where it said that "the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase. "

There is multi-decadal warming. It is likely to continue. You quoted that bit yourself.

The piece deals with the ENSO cycle and its impact on short term weather cycles.

As I said. Like, fifty damn times.

As for the statement "Both studies reference an 8 decade-long slight NEGATIVE trend in warming." WTAF are you talking about. Have a look at a temperature dataset sometime. There was never a negative trend in warming. Even during the misnamed "hiatus" you're obsessed with, there was statistically significant warming. It was just less than expected and people were trying to work out why. The warming trend continued.

In other words, what's important to you is not observation but what is "plausible" and "very likely" in the minds of the researchers based on their models? And why would they bother addressing something they aren't seeing and something you say never existed?

In other words, what is important to j' hen is cherry-picking a few select words and phrases, and in a conscious act, to support his lie, WILLFULLY DISUNDERSTANDING the content and conclusions of a study which show the exact opposite to be true.

There never was a hiatus, j' hen. There was a SLOWER RATE of surface temperature increase for a few years, accompanied by a significant heating of the world oceans at increasing depths which is where your vaunted "hiatus" heating went. In case you will disunderstand again, this heat transfer was accomplished by the world ocean overturning cycles, both Atlantic and Pacific.